Sorry, I didn't realize you were talking about the weight difference between fighters in the same weight class. Yeah, some of them might weigh like two or three pounds heavier than one another. Jones might have weighed like 5 pounds heavier than Rashad. Oh wait, what's your point again?

__________________
Is there any way to unswallow my pride? Can I fuck myself down?

P4P has gone way beyond how much you weigh at weigh-ins, especially considering what a sport weight-cutting has become itself. A guy who weighs in at 205 but fights at 230 against guys who weigh 210-215 can't be considered a P4P great. You can fool yourself going by the official weigh-in weight, but we know it's a bs stat because of the weight variances in the cage.

K. If you have OFFICIAL numbers of how much each fighter weights in the ring, plz do share, otherwise all you do is speculate n therefore we gotta stick with official numbers n jones is a 205er n kicks other 205ers asses n makes it look easy

Sorry, I didn't realize you were talking about the weight difference between fighters in the same weight class. Yeah, some of them might weigh like two or three pounds heavier than one another. Jones might have weighed like 5 pounds heavier than Rashad. Oh wait, what's your point again?

Gleison Tibau weighed as heavy as 183 lbs for a LW fight, the day after he weighed in at 155 lbs.

Gleison Tibau weighed as heavy as 183 lbs for a LW fight, the day after he weighed in at 155 lbs.

When you cut more water weight, you start to see diminishing returns on your efforts. There comes a point where walking into the cage with few pounds of extra mass isn't worth the toll it takes on your stamina on fight night. So, even if some fighters do cut more than others, they end up sacrificing some aspects of their performance in order to do so and it ultimately isn't worth it. There is an optimal range and when fighters are cutting within that range, they are essentially the same weight in the cage.

Yeh, this is where the problem lies... in making the P4P logical. It's not actually possible. P4P is totally subjective, and actually based on a combination of both factors (domination and skillset).

If we go by your definition, Ronda HAS to be #1. She has totally destroyed everyone.
If we go by my definition, i'd say MM would have to be #1.

Now for me, Ronda, despite having awesome judo and a really good ground game, doesn't possess the all round attributes to have the #1 skillset (and hence P4P).

For you (i'm gonna take a guess), MM has lost a couple of times, drawn, had an SD etc, so can't be #1 for domination.

Mixing both skillset and domination credentials would make Jones #1, actually. Not the most dominant of the champions (though close), not the greatest (perceived) skillset (though close), yet he's excellent in both, and combining the two; he's on another level.

Changed my mind, Jones is #1 P4P.

The reason Ronda is not the #1 due to divisional dominance is simply because her weight division is the shallowest in the UFC.

I could see taking skill sets into account, but that is murky waters, at the very least. The dynamics of fighting at lighter weight classes are very different than fighting at heavier ones. You don't have to fight gravity as much when you are smaller so you can look faster, have "better stamina" and so on than heavyweights, say. A lot of things change when you talk about widely disparate weight classes, so direct comparisons are almost impossible.

The reason Ronda is not the #1 due to divisional dominance is simply because her weight division is the shallowest in the UFC.

I could see taking skill sets into account, but that is murky waters, at the very least. The dynamics of fighting at lighter weight classes are very different than fighting at heavier ones. You don't have to fight gravity as much when you are smaller so you can look faster, have "better stamina" and so on than heavyweights, say. A lot of things change when you talk about widely disparate weight classes, so direct comparisons are almost impossible.

Yep, so we're trying to rationalise something that cannot really be rationalised.

No singular metric will suffice, so I think the closest we can get is to say that it's a mixture of factors, (some) being: dominance, performance based on the perceived 'strength' of a division, skillset...

Regardless, it's still subjective. "Performance based on the perceived 'strength' of a division" is also subjective, because how do you define the 'strength' of a division?

"A lot of things change when you talk about widely disparate weight classes, so direct comparisons are almost impossible."
Ha, it's now totally apparent that coming to any sort of concrete conclusion around P4P is impossible.